But more interesting from our standpoint are the copyright questions this raises. Some even pondered if his reading the book on the Senate floor would impact the public domain status of the book. The answer to that is no, though some other questions may be a bit more obscure. I've emailed some copyright lawyers for their take on the question, but we might as well discuss them here in the comments. The book is clearly covered by copyright. Cruz's reading of it is likely protected by the speech or debate clause, and even potentially a fair use claim. The bigger question is about everyone else who's showing it. Are TV news programs who show it violating the copyright? It may depend very much on how they present it, and it seems likely that many would have a very strong fair use claim -- it's newsworthy (in some sense), it's unlikely to negatively impact the work, etc. Of course, if a TV program decided to use it, instead, as a "storytime hour with Senator Ted Cruz" in which he reads the book to entertain children... there might be some copyright questions raised. Still, it's worth noting that the owner of the copyright, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, has a history of going legal over pretty clear fair use claims.

Still, there is a larger point in all of this: this is yet another example of a politician realizing that there's benefit in being able to use copyright covered material for his personal benefit, without the permission of the copyright holder. This is why fair use is important, and why attempts to limit it are so problematic. While I've never seen Senator Cruz involved in any copyright debates, but it will be interesting to see, should copyright reform issues ever finally reach the Senate floor, if he's willing to stand up for expanded fair use, based on his own recognition of the value of being able to, say, read an entire book to try to make a point.

Clear copyright infringement, Take him to court, and ruin his life. Make an example of him. Then maybe, just maybe. There will be an actual discussion, in the senate and congress, of how absurd copyright has become.

Re:

How so? What if a senator reads an entire work, and this reading is recorded? Aren't all works produced by the federal government automatically public domain? Would someone then using that recording in their own way be violating a copyright or making using of a government produced public domain work?

Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.

@ Rikuo: If it's your opinion this article is stupid, fine. That's your opinion. But please, give your reasoning.
It's stupid because Mike writes: "drawing almost more attention than the thing he was filibustering about was..." WHILE he too is totally ignoring the filbuster.

It's stupid because Mike writes: "But more interesting from our standpoint are the copyright questions this raises." WHEN DOESN'T RAISE ANY -- except maybe among weenies who want to destroy copyright.

It's stupid because Mike writes: "use copyright covered material for his personal benefit" when it's on the floor of Congress and that's always The People's business -- whether they want it or not -- I can't imagine how Mike construes that as "personal benefit", but ask him.

In fact, being generous as I can: a) I've NO idea what Mike's point is here: he's basically a machine that spews out text with "copyright" or "DMCA" or "fair use" or other key words in it b) there are DOZENS of more important items on Drudge that he could rant about: my favorite is that Apple has already admitted it's in cahoots with NSA and will turn over fingerprint data! Now THAT'S of interest.

But I do have to disagree with the AC's "could": This MUST be one of the stupidest articles ever posted on this site.

Should the Senator be fined or jailed for reading a copy written work in the open senate, is that illegal?.

Should he have been required to pay a license fee?

If not, what about this being done by a senator make this different then someone reading the book to a group of friends or even charging a feel for a public reading

Can the text of the book now be repeated by other in reference to the events that took place on the senate

If reading the book was "Wrong" either legally or morally, why didn't the senator know that. Or is he just a terrible person who is morally corrupt? How can a common citizen be expected to respect copyright if their senators don't.

Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.

Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.

a) It looks like several critical copyright observations
a1) Senator moshed Dr. Seuss with a filibuster
a2) Senator provided a public performance
a3) Senator's words are on the record (recorded, copied, disseminated etc.)

b) Copyright is important because it absolutely BLOWS right now.

As for personal gain, well, senator just made himself a little more famous by rallying for something he stands for and at the same time providing entertainment by reading other peoples' works.

They're valid questions to which legal answers would be worthy.

Fair-use is critical to the public. It needs to be better defined and apply to every created work ever.

Hmmm seems like Article I Section 6 needs updating...

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, Breach of the Peace, and Copyright Infringement, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.Article I Section 6

Re: A better question

One day a rich man was diagnosed with cancer, fearing death and loss of his wealth he preyed each night that God would let him take his hard earned wealth with him to heaven.

A few weeks before death God answers his prayers and agrees to let him bring just one suitcase. After death he approaches the pearly gates where St. Peter stops him stating "you can not bring anything with you." The man replies "I have permissions from God to bring just one suitcase." St. Peter checks the roster "Ok, I see it here but I have to inspect the contents."

The suitcase is opened and St. Peter looks at the man confused and asks "Why did you bring a suitcase of paving bricks with you?"

After that the spirits hired lobbyists to get copyright extended past death. Gold has no use in heaven but apparently locking up works in a twisted web of copyright transfers makes your status in Heaven better. I hear Dr. King is Jesus right hand man for making sure his speeches were under strict copyright.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, Breach of the Peace, and unauthorized use of Intellectual Property, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Cruz is a scumbag grandstander.........does what he does for himself.He does not care about others and he is so unintelligent.Has about the same intellect as the people who actually Voted for the creep.
He does not know History either and makes up stuff like his little Munich Speech where he quoted the wrong Year it occurred.

Can I get a free copy of Green Eggs and Ham now?

After all, it will be in the Congressional Record, and that document is available to everyone for free. It starts on page S6732 in the Congressional Record for Tuesday, 24 September. Here's a link to that PDF document:

Re: A better question

I've said before, how the heck are our fine creators going to maintain their afterlives without copyright? In fact I believe we should amend the DMCA to provide spiritual money payments for eternity so these poor souls will benefit from their works properly in their afterlives. You know, converting real currency to spiritual currency needs quite the effort (see: Pharaohs and their pyramids).

Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.

You are claiming Drudge is a yellow journalist even though he does not write articles. He simply picks articles from other news sites to highlight and writes a short title that links to the article. I guess you like the news being controlled by a few gatekeepers that choose to highlight the articles that provide the narrative that they are pushing. I guess that you do not like to have to read articles that talk about things that challenge your beliefs.

Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail

You do realize that the Affordable Care Act, he was railing against is intended to fail. It is intended to be an unworkable combination of public and private bureaucracies that leads to the creation of a government run healthcare system. President Obama has implied that this public option was his preference, but the public was not ready for it.

Re: Re: A better question

Re: Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail

Actually, the public has been misled by the Far Right, whose tinfoil-hattery has stifled debate and turned it into a case of Death Panels V Freedom instead of Public Good V Private Healthcare rip-offery.

All the while forgetting it was a Heritage project picked up by the Dems in the name of bipartisanship... and rejected for that reason.

It was a bed time story to his kids

He read the story as a bed time story to his kids. I agree that it is interesting to look at the copyright implications of this. In fact, it is interesting to look at the copyright of reading bed time stories to your kids when you are on the road. Copyright is broken and leads to all sorts of unjust outcomes. Lets put the Green Eggs and Ham story in context, it was a minuscule part of what he was talking about. It is kind of interesting that this is the tiny unimportant part of the speech is getting all the coverage.

Re: Re: Re: A better question

Re: Re:

I can tell that your Irony Meter is broken if you can't see the irony in Sen. Cruz using the story in an attempt to stall, block, and repeal ACA. That or you're one of those annoyingly stubborn and misinformed Dead Dog Republicans.

The programs that have been enacted so far have greatly benefitted me. For instance, insurance companies can no longer charge me a higher premium because I'm not a man. Also since I have the breast cancer gene (most women in my family do) I cannot be denied coverage due to a "Pre-existing condition." Even though I do not have breast cancer and may not get it until much later in life (if I even do). There's more that works in my favor so I don't really see any issues with ACA as it is now.

But then members and leadership of the Republican party have been attacking women's health for the better part of a decade now so I'm not surprised at this turn either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question

Re: Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.

He does occasional journalism -- that's how he made his name -- but it's the worst kind, false character assassinations.

Also, you should check out how new is intentionally slanted to advocate a certain point of view. The primary technique involves which stories you select to print (or, more importantly, which ones you don't select to print. Writing the stories yourself isn't necessary. The most influential person in setting a newspaper's slant is the editor, not the reporter.

Also, Drudge is just as much a gatekeeper as any other new disseminator, so I'm a bit confused about why you raise that as an argument at all.

Also, you know nothing about me. I love nothing more than reading things that challenge my ideas -- but that's irrelevant to the question of Drudge.